Wednesday, November 30, 2011

0265.txt

<x-flowed>ok, Jonathan and Eystein, Keith and I have said about as much as we can, we are falling over each other trying to not to push our own work, its obvious neither will be offended etc etc

just tell who what to do what.....

as for contrib. author, I still think it is a good idea to try to keep the reviewers separate although now that I think of it I am not really separate so maybe it is a moot point

tom

Keith Briffa wrote:

> Sorry> my message went off before I received Tom's latest - which reminded me > that I had not responded to the question re the short versus full > exposition of data.> This might be a bad idea - not letting people judge for themselves > whether the MWP scatter is greater than other periods (particularly in > the recent period). I strongly urge using all period (and with no > composite line through) - sorry have to dash , but will be back to > read other opinions first thing tomorrow> Keith>> At 15:24 19/07/2005, you wrote:>>> I just highlighted the mwp section - my time series starts later than >> 800 - a number of the records are truncated before 950. tc>>>> Eystein Jansen wrote:>>>>> Hi,>>> I think both Keith's and Tom's emails highlight some of the problems >>> when going from hemispheric scale reconstructions to plots of >>> individual records or regional groupings of them. First I agree with >>> Keith concerning the reality of a warmer MWP on average, we cannot >>> leave the impression that there was no warmth when making the >>> argument that it had lots of geographical and temporal diversity.>>> We should make it clear the distinction between reconstructions and >>> individual series.>>> Concerning Tom's point about which series to include, I see the >>> point of avoiding oversampling one region, but there is a problem as >>> soon as we start bringinging indivifual series together to make a >>> regional composite. We will undoubtedly be attacked for not showing >>> all available data, but can come around this by stating yhat the >>> purpose is not that of a reconstruction, rather to drive home the >>> point of geograhy/temporal diversity through typical series. I >>> would also concur that we should omit the Chesapeak series, if the >>> data is Cronin's Mg/Ca data. There are too many uncertainties on >>> salinity influences on this proxy, plus it is radiocarbon based. >>> Both here and in the text the lack of low lat series needs to be >>> pointed out.>>> I think we should stick to the agreement from our conf.call and only >>> show the 800-1300 AD interval. This will avoid confusion wrt the >>> reconstruction fig. in the main chapter.>>> Cheers>>> Eystein>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > Professor Keith Briffa,> Climatic Research Unit> University of East Anglia> Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.>> Phone: +44-1603-593909> Fax: +44-1603-507784>> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/